Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the fields returned, which matters because there is no output schema; what it omits is error behavior (e.g. response for a nonexistent id) and pagination/expansion options.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the payload fields. The endpoint notation is the only mildly redundant element and costs almost nothing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool, the description plus annotations plus schema cover nearly everything an agent needs, and listing returned fields compensates for the absent output schema. The only gap is behavioral edge cases such as not-found handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. 'by id' reinforces that the path parameter is the client identifier but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema's integer/exclusiveMinimum constraint.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('One client by id') and enumerates the substantive fields returned (contact details, address, birth date, record number, active flag), which clearly separates it from agendapro_list_clients and agendapro_search_clients. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'by id' implies you must already have a client id, which is the only guidance given about when to use it. There is no explicit statement that agendapro_search_clients or agendapro_list_clients should be used when the id is unknown, and no mention of prerequisites or failure modes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.